Currently, I support Democrats because the recent corruption is much more than I care for. They are also more closely aligned with where I stand on simple ideological issues (abortion, gay marriage, stuff like that). Their policies seem to be less aggressive than Republicans' and they also seem to do a better job of upholding the spirit of the Constitution in my opinion. Obviously this could change at some point in the future and I would consider switching my support, but at present, Democrats are the best option out there.

Feel free to post your biggest reasons and ask people why they support a certain party.

10/31/2007 2:37:41 AM

Nice two-party mentality you've got there. Be black or white... grey is for social outcasts and crazies.

In other words, I don't support either party.
They basically serve as a way for powerful individuals to maintain power by pandering to generalized demographics and ignoring any real rational thought, instead relying on a pre-scripted party platform and the notion that the two parties will be in perpetual disagreement, discouraging any compromise and thusly removing any means by which someone outside of these highly-polarized political machines might get into a position of power and push for reform, never mind that the general public is largely moderate when compared with most elected officials.

(heh, I just realized that the above is all one massive sentence. Go me.)

10/31/2007 2:44:32 AM

I would have added in another option if there was one, but feel free to post what you like/hate about either one of them or any other minor party. I just want to know what actually drives people to vote one way or the other.

10/31/2007 2:48:41 AM

I vote based on the candidate and which one is more aligned with my beliefs, regardless of party.

I'm generally a fiscal conservative and moderate on social issues (I go left on some, right on others, middle on more others). Right now in the presidential race I support Joe Biden (due to his willingness to think about issues, regardless of his stance on them), Barack Obama (due to his generally moderate policies and the fact that he's not Hilary and has a chance at winning the Dem primaries), and Ron Paul (due to his adherence to the Constitution and the fact that many of our beliefs about government are similar).

10/31/2007 2:58:53 AM

Quote :

"Nice two-party mentality you've got there. Be black or white... grey is for social outcasts and crazies. In other words, I don't support either party. They basically serve as a way for powerful individuals to maintain power by pandering to generalized demographics and ignoring any real rational thought, instead relying on a pre-scripted party platform and the notion that the two parties will be in perpetual disagreement, discouraging any compromise and thusly removing any means by which someone outside of these highly-polarized political machines might get into a position of power and push for reform, never mind that the general public is largely moderate when compared with most elected officials."

exactly. that's how I feel. well put.

Quote :

"Why do you support Democrats/Republicans?"

I support neither; anyone who does is a fucking tool (sorry if I offended you )

bipartisanship is the antithesis of democracy

Republicrats and Demopublicans are the same thing

they are both basically working towards socialist fascism

the only thing they disagree on is how to best achieve that



as much as I hate to do it

I have to give "them" credit for using such a brilliant tactic

by presenting themselves as polar opposites, people are constantly distracted from the issues they agree on

(fewer individual rights, bigger government, social homogenization, world takeover, corporatism, etc.)

bipartisanship is horribly damaging & dangerous to every aspect of US security and individual civil liberties

all bipartisanship does is justify Republicrat/Demopublican agendas while ignoring EVERY OTHER VIEWPOINT.

Libertarians, Greens, Reformers, Marijuanas, Constitutionals, Natural Laws, Socials, Independents, Anarchists, etc.

are all robbed of their democratic voice by the advancement of bipartisanship



I would do anything

if only it could guarantee the complete and permanent abandonment of the two-party [electoral] system



that being said, I have voted for a Democrat (Harvey Gantt)

but I was young and naive

and easily fooled by the common bipartisan "instead of voting for someone, vote against someone" trick

Oh, and I'll likely be voting for Republican candidate Ron Paul (not because he's a Republican,)

even though my 96', 00' and 04' presidential votes went to the Libertarian candidate

Quote :

"highly-polarized"

indeed

I am constantly getting labeled a supporter of Republicrats or Demopublicans by those who fall prey to this

just recently, for example, someone on TWW complained about my alleged support for the Iraq war

based solely on my comments in support of fiscal conservancy.

OMG ALL FISCAL CONSERVATIVES ARE REPUBLICANS,

AND ALL IRAQ WAR SUPPORTERS ARE REPUBLICANS,

SO, ACCORDING TO MY SUPERB LOGICAL SKILLS,

THIS FISCAL CONSERVATIVE MUST BE AN IRAQ WAR SUPPORTER







[Edited on October 31, 2007 at 7:54 AM. Reason : ]

10/31/2007 7:51:56 AM

I was actually having a discussion with my dad yesterday about why we need a shift to a more parliamentary-like system so we can have more diversity represented in the electorate.

Two parties are useless and third parties don't have any power.

10/31/2007 7:57:30 AM

I'm a libertarian, so the Democrats and Republicans don't like me or my beliefs and show me the finger often.

But here are my votes:

Votes for President:
2000-Pat Buchanan (Reform)
2004-Badnarik (Libertarian)

Votes for Governor:
2000-Vinroot (Republican)
2004-Howe (Libertarian)

Vote for Senator:
2004-Bailey (Libertarian)

Votes for Representative:
2000-Walter B. Jones for NC 3rd (Republican)
2004-Creech for NC 2nd (Republican, lost to Bob Etheridge)
2006-Mansell for NC 2nd (Republican, lost to Bob Etheridge)

[Edited on October 31, 2007 at 8:09 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2007 8:03:10 AM

thats because most libertarians come off as angry log cabin unabomer-esque motherfuckers.

10/31/2007 8:04:20 AM

I think the guy is a complete douche, but i pretty much agree with everything 392 said.

10/31/2007 8:22:59 AM

im REGISTERED a republican so that I can have a say in the primaries.

But to say I support republicans or democrats as a whole is just stupid for sure. just as stupid as people who vote a straight ticket without caring about the actual people on the ballot.

with that being said, I support Ron Paul, but do not support all of the other republican candidates' views by any means.

10/31/2007 8:29:33 AM

Quote :

"I think the guy is a complete douche, but i pretty much agree with everything 392 said"

10/31/2007 8:35:31 AM

I tend to lean toward whichever candidate has the best environmental policy. Right now it seems as though the Democrats (not simply the current choices) would do more to protect that which I care about the most. I am not meaning just jumping on the climate change bandwagon. I mean for wholesale reduction in pollution (both sea, land and air), a reduction in over fishing and a reduction in loss of habitat. A real leader in this field would do these things in a manner that is consistent with growth as well as being the example, once again, to the world of how you take care of nature.

10/31/2007 8:41:27 AM

I feel strongly about issues that are spread between the two parties.

However, what affects me most is my ability to provide for myself and family. So I tend to go republican simply because they dont seem to to penalize the productive and reward the irresponsbile as much as the dems.

However, it must be noted GW Bush is hardly what I would call a republican.

I can see people being turned off by the "religious" right. However, I dont see a presidents religion affecting me personally. I dont think they are going to legislate we all go to baptist churches any time soon.

However, I view this "tax the rich" BS and MORE govt programs and freebies being thrown out there as a direct threat to my earning potential, which clearly turns me off on the democrates.

I like some ideas from paul. I love the small govt, no IRS, no nation building. I just dont feel he is electible when the time comes.

Ill support whoever is for the fairtax or a flat tax, and if they dont get a nomination whoever opposses hillary.

10/31/2007 9:01:42 AM

Quote :

"socialist fascism"

Does not compute

Quote :

"I view this "tax the rich" BS and MORE govt programs "

The arguments on either side are both compelling. My opinion is that the more
socialization we get as far as health care and other programs we should converge to more of
a flat tax. While I intrisically agree with a progressive tax to a certain degree; if the
working class and poor people are going to be leeching money off the system than they need
to put more in. Otherwise they would be putting the least as a % of income but receiving
an order of magnitude greater benefits to the government.

10/31/2007 9:25:42 AM

Quote :

"Republicrats and Demopublicans are the same thing they are both basically working towards socialist fascism "

Give the man a prize. The Dems will get you to socialist hell faster, but both parties are on the path of good intentions.

10/31/2007 9:31:41 AM

I don't like taxes anymore than the next person. But you have to see their utility. If it weren't for them then we wouldn't be able to pay for roads, education, and all that stuff that actually matters.

I think Social Security is a good thing. If you work hard all your life, you should be able to live in relative comfort for your last days. I'm not oblivious to the crisis that's looming though. I think retirement age should be moved up to 60. That would piss a lot of people off, but we're living way longer than we have before and it only makes sense that you should work longer if you're going to live longer.

I'm skeptical about socialized health care. The private system is pretty efficient at getting people who can pay for it the help they need. But that still leaves 70 million people out to dry. I want to believe it could work but I just don't know. Part of the reason our health care costs so much is because we're such an unhealthy country as a whole. We waste billions of dollars on heart disease treatments, diabetes, smoking, cancer. Individuals should be held more accountable for their health care costs based on their lifestyle choices. I want to hear someone come out and say "if you're fat, you pay more." Screw political correctness. It's costing healthy people money. Like I said, it'd be nice if the government could take care of this and make it work, but it would just cost so much money and probably would be terribly inefficient. Unless someone can come up with a detailed and accurate plan of how this could work, I'd probably say I'm against it at this point. But I do think getting people universal health care is a noble and worthy cause that should be pursued.

One thing that pisses me off is the lack of funding for programs that so desperately need it. Education is severely underfunded. I think NASA gets far less money than they deserve. If they had a bigger budget, I think the scientific rewards would totally be worth it. Our infrastructure is slowly crumbling away. One way we could divert money to these programs (and many of you will not like this) is to freeze military spending. Military spending accounts for half of the entire government budget. If we held spending where it is right now for 5 years, we could more than double the funding for programs that truly need more money. Even if we held it for five years, our military budget would still dwarf the next highest country. We can afford to and it would help underfunded programs catch up to where they should be.

Social welfare programs that achieve results (afterschool programs, adult education programs, etc.) should be more well funded because they serve a legitimate purpose. Most handouts are retarded. If you get laid off from a real job that you've held for a certain period of time, you should qualify for up to 3 months of social welfare and after that you're cut off. If you're a working single mother, you should be given tax exemptions. If you're a crackhead with no job, you should be happy with whatever you can bum off the streets. People who work but are unskilled should be helped out because they perform valuable services that just happen to be of little economic value. Most people who work the cash register at McDonald's probably work harder than a lot of people who make millions of dollars a year. Someone has to do that job and as long as they're contributing something positive to society (albeit something minor) then society should help them out too.

Law enforcement in this country has been taken too far. I hate looking around and seeing cops that have new cars every single year and seeing 3 of them swarm on one guy getting pulled over in 2 seconds. But when you call them and need assistance it takes them a half fucking hour to get there. This is the biggest waste of money domestically in my opinion. Police should be public servants. Helping people who need help should be a large part of their job instead of driving around trying to be a badass but looking like a douche. They are given far too much power and it is often abused. Law enforcement is a hard job, and a necessary one, but America's approach to it is all wrong. Yall are gonna scoff at this coming from me, but marijuana really should be legalized. Tax it, regulate it, sell it. Keep people out of jail and earning money. Take money away from drug dealers and criminals. Less work for law enforcement. Generate/save 14 billion dollars a year. Winning situation all around.

Anyway, those are issues that are important to me. And for the record, I don't vote straight Democrat, but right now they're the best option with a realistic chance of winning.

10/31/2007 10:06:13 AM

^you make alot of great points.

I do feel taxes are necessary, however we can collect those in a fairer way. Our govt penalizes the productive and subsidizes the irresponsible. that just isnt right. In fact, its upside down.

I do think you meant to raise the retirement age to 70 and not 60. But SS should not be the only means of someones retirement. In fact, alot on here are young and we will either not get our SS checks or be penalized or means tested out of OUR money. That is bullshit, but will no doubt happen, as just another example of the govt penalizing responsibility.

I will disagree about helping unskilled workers though. I would agree that our govt should help our workers first before people who choose to not work. But simply giving out handouts because you work a cash register is ridiculous. They are there by choice. I dont know how we got to the point where being successful and earning money became such a bad thing, and something to be penalized.

10/31/2007 10:15:31 AM

Quote :

"I think NASA gets far less money than they deserve. If they had a bigger budget, I think the scientific rewards would totally be worth it."

Space exploration should be opened up more to the private sector. Current gov't policies prevent private enterprise from effectively competing and getting into the space.

I agree with your points. Gov't spending is out of hand but that money could be used for a lot better things than Bush's war for oil and neo-imperialism

10/31/2007 10:22:43 AM

Quote :

"I dont know how we got to the point where being successful and earning money became such a bad thing, and something to be penalized."

Even if those successful people are taxed at a higher percentage, they're still better off than every single one of the cash register workers. It pisses me off when millionaires complain about paying taxes. Sure, you pay more... but you're still better off than 99% of everyone else. How bout settling for a slightly smaller yacht so I can afford to send my kids to college... I don't think taxes could ever realistically be high enough for the disincentive to make $100Ks to come into play. There's no level where making more money and paying higher percentage taxes puts you in a worse position than someone who makes less money than you.

[Edited on October 31, 2007 at 10:25 AM. Reason : ]

10/31/2007 10:25:00 AM

They worked hard to make their money; why should they be taxed beyond a reasonable amount to programs that benefit those that pay less cash into the system.

this is why i think an increase in social programs should be accompanied with a more flat tax. If the government is going to be helping those who can't seem to help themselves than they should pay a high % instead of paying for a Yukon while living in a trailor park or buying blow when they can't even afford healthy insurance.

10/31/2007 10:28:02 AM

Quote :

"^you make alot of great points. I do feel taxes are necessary, however we can collect those in a fairer way. Our govt penalizes the productive and subsidizes the irresponsible. that just isnt right. In fact, its upside down."

Again, I'm a libertarian, but I realize taxes serve a necessary purpose. You're right on your point of penalizing the productive and subsidizing the irresponsible.

Something I have been thinking about more of lately is tax breaks and their relationship to tax rates. It seems like a person can get a tax break for near anything today. Well, the government still needs a set amount of money to operate and so all those tax breaks do is that means the government goes elsewhere to collect. I've been wondering if all our tax breaks disappeared, if that meant we'd have much lower tax rates for most people and businesses, and if that would be a good thing.

10/31/2007 10:41:37 AM

I don't support either. Doesn't mean I won't support a candidate from either party if I think he is worthy of the job. which pretty much means never because they are all money grubbing not for the people pricks. aka politicians.

[Edited on October 31, 2007 at 10:49 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2007 10:49:29 AM

^^^ It's a tricky subject and I sure as hell don't have all the answers (if any for that matter). But in order for lower economic class people to benefit, you'd either have to flat tax everyone high, or tax the rich high. If a low-level worker is taxed high, he'll see much more of that money come back to him than the rich person who would likely see very little come back to him if anything. Why even tax him in the first place, unless the goal was to put that money into some kind of government program? If you take money away in order to ensure it goes to proper use like health care or college payment programs then maybe that could work. But then the rich guy is gonna complain about how all his money is going to some program that he gets no benefit from. He does get benefit from something like that though. Indirectly, but if 1 more kid goes to college because he pays higher taxes, is that not a net gain for him and America?

It's a very difficult subject. Sometimes I think about a lot of people who were born into a bad situation and might not have had a chance to be successful but had there been some opportunity or door open for them, maybe it would have been different. Capitalism can be cruel in the sense that it keeps the big guys at the top and the little guys at the bottom save for rare exceptions. It's hard to go from middle class to upper class in a lifetime. It's damn near impossible to go from lower class to upper class unless you're blessed enough to be a pro athlete. The solution should be creating as many opportunities for success as possible for all people from all backgrounds. Obviously, if you take rich people's money and use it to help poor people, they see that a threat to their status. Does that create even more incentive to work hard? To maintain what you have? It's like I said before:

Quote :

"There's no level where making more money and paying higher percentage taxes puts you in a worse position than someone who makes less money than you"

I'm not proposing handouts, but if someone is willing to better themselves, the opportunity should always be available to them. Parenting classes for adults, cheap as hell community college, much cheaper than it is now 4-year universities, easier access to loans/grants/scholarships for people who deserve them, health care for people who work full time but truly can't afford it, day care centers, better education in inner city schools. There are countless ways social money could be used to actually help people rather than just giving them cash on the spot.

[Edited on October 31, 2007 at 10:57 AM. Reason : ]

10/31/2007 10:55:42 AM

Quote :

"Why even tax him in the first place,"

Just look at the aftermath from hurricane Katrina. Redcross gave out $1500 debit cards for people to get their lives "back on track." A month later nbc did a report about how many people used this money to buy a shit load of booze; lap dances from hookers; and lots of other crap instead of getting their shit straight.

10/31/2007 11:25:08 AM

420, Im still concerned with your general tone that someone who makes alot of money isnt entitled to thier own money. Just because someone works in this country doesnt mean we all should have the same lifestyle. I was told by my grandfather you either use your mind or your back to make a living, and he encouraged me to go to school.

I expect to be paid well. I took alot of risks, loans, and sacrifices to get my degrees. I make barely over 100k now after 4 years. I owe more than 100k in student loans. I dont feel rich. I drive my 2000 accord with 138k miles. Why? because its paid for and Im in alot of debt. After taxes I take home around 5k a month. Wanting to raise my taxes really affects me personally. When my wife gets out of school we will be bumped into a higher bracket. The same one the dems keep talking about being SO rich and needing to pay more. It plays well because they are outnumbered and people LOVE freebies as long as it doesnt affect THIER money. I dont think penalizing productive people including doctors or cashiers is the way to go. How bout we stop rewarding people for being irresponsible and actually have some programs that limit the amount of assistance these people get. THen we can help, temp, the working if they run into hard times through no fault of their own. Im not saying you give them free healthcare, free LOL, so they can keep their boat and harley on 25k a year salary, but if hard times fall on someone they should get temp assistance. IMHO.

Im sure ill get blasted for "exposing" myself that much.

10/31/2007 12:46:46 PM

... How the hell does someone wrack up $100k in student loans? It is unfathomable.

10/31/2007 1:02:18 PM

^Im doing pretty good. I had no undergrad debt. Besides tuition you have to buy your equipment and textbooks, and anything "medical" gets the price x10 effect. Also living expenses. I shared an apartment with 3 guys and waited tables to make ends meet. It help keep my debt down. I could live off 600 a month while in school.

I graduated with some with debts over 250k

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/5349.html

10/31/2007 1:15:41 PM

That settles it. Having exactly 125 medical schools graduating about the same number of doctors for fifty years straight is stupid. It is obviously too expensive and too difficult to become a doctor if you graduate with $100k in friggin' debt, especially when you were working at the same time!

This is a scandal in my eyes. Fuck the AMA cartel, we need more doctors, not fewer.

10/31/2007 2:39:34 PM

Sadly applications to medical school have been down for years, mainly due to ins., lawsuits, and not being able to control your income. You dont get into medicine to get rich. yes, you can make a good living, but most dont get rich. So they have started lowering standards. All the while, applications to law schools and new law schools pop up all over the place. You can see where the easy buck is.

Yesterday a drug rep took me to lunch. He makes alot more than I do. He used to be a teacher and now is a drug rep. He laughes that Im on the wrong side of healthcare to make money. Sadly he is right. I dont remember the last time a drug rep got sued.

[Edited on October 31, 2007 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2007 2:49:46 PM

^ Welcome to real life.

10/31/2007 3:55:02 PM

sometimes i just wish other countries would attack us all the time so we could start using nukes on some people

10/31/2007 5:07:49 PM

flyin, are you addressing me?

10/31/2007 5:13:27 PM

^ Somewhat. I should have elaborated.

Quote :

"I expect to be paid well. I took alot of risks, loans, and sacrifices to get my degrees. I make barely over 100k now after 4 years. I owe more than 100k in student loans. I dont feel rich. I drive my 2000 accord with 138k miles. Why? because its paid for and Im in alot of debt. After taxes I take home around 5k a month. Wanting to raise my taxes really affects me personally. When my wife gets out of school we will be bumped into a higher bracket. The same one the dems keep talking about being SO rich and needing to pay more. It plays well because they are outnumbered and people LOVE freebies as long as it doesnt affect THIER money. I dont think penalizing productive people including doctors or cashiers is the way to go. How bout we stop rewarding people for being irresponsible and actually have some programs that limit the amount of assistance these people get. THen we can help, temp, the working if they run into hard times through no fault of their own. Im not saying you give them free healthcare, free LOL, so they can keep their boat and harley on 25k a year salary, but if hard times fall on someone they should get temp assistance. IMHO."

What you expect to be paid and what you are paid are different cause people will pay you what they think your service is worth. So your expectations of how much you are due mean as much as a farmer's opinion of the worth of his corn he just harvested.

Medicine was the way you describe it before you entered. I'm not exactly sure why you're so surprised that you're in heavy debt after 8 or so years of school that is overpriced to start with and that insurance is a killer in the litigious country we live in. Take away the insurance, you still have the 100k debt. So if you charged what you felt you were due for your service, what's that mean, double the cost for me? Good luck with that, I'll get my healthcare by flying down to Tijuana. Not dissing you, just making a point that I feel charged "enough" and I have an upper limit on willingness to pay. What needs to happen is insurance costs go down, less litigious lawyers, HMOs and the like become more cooperative, medical schools and education in general get cheaper, and the uninsured (that's legal citizens and illegal) are just refused or are paid for in some way.

I'm not holding my breath.

[Edited on October 31, 2007 at 6:09 PM. Reason : /]

10/31/2007 5:52:35 PM

i support neither because neither party advocates my beliefs. Actually, neither party really advocates anything except for whatever is opposite the other.

10/31/2007 6:01:34 PM

flyin, Im not shocked by my pay. I just grow tired of hearing about how people who make 100k are rich. Its just not the case. It often costs alot of money to demand such a salary, like me. That was my point.

Let me ask you this. I have an insurance that pays 28 bucks for an exam. We literally lose money. 28 bucks is insulting, however we view it like community service. Do you feel 28 bucks is a fare price for an exam?

I think the market for just over 100 bucks for a medical exam is acceptable. So I could see 4 patients at 28 or just one at 100. Hmmm, so you wonder why you have to wait so long. We pack them in, so we can mantain our incomes to meet our expenses. After all, it is a business. ANd it operates no different than a hardware store. Someone has to pay to keep the lights on. The light company oddly enough doesnt accept 20 cents on the dollar.

10/31/2007 6:53:37 PM

I'm moderate on financial issues, liberal on social ones.

I think ideas like education, health care, protecting environment and all that are great and should be done to a responsible degree through governmental financial support. But it’s the civil rights, individual liberties, and keeping the government out of bedrooms that make me a democrat.

I'm firmly against any party that wants to amend the constitution to add anti-gay sentiments, and against any party that wants to take away its citizens civil rights in the name of security.

And I think if the government is going to spend, I'd rather it be on making college education cheaper and helping our poor kids get health coverage than spending tons on wars we were misled about.

10/31/2007 8:05:35 PM

supplanter, Im a big supporter of the govt getting out of our lives. Im a big fan of a fairtax and no income tax.

I feel that a country this rich should provide BASIC healthcare to the needy. However, that just isnt what is happening. Our "poor" have the best system there is. Pay nothing, everything is covered. Its upside down. Our govt encourages people to be more irresponsible, then tax the workers because they are somehow evil making all that money. Its sad.

I dont think its up to the govt to decide what two willing adults can do to eachother. Civil unions are fine with me. Just dont let someone be able to sue a church if they are declined to host their ceremony there.. .which will happen..no doubt. The ONLY problem i can see with civil unions is fraud. You coudl have roommates declare civil unions to simply share benefits or programs. If they can work that out..why not.

I have mixed feelings on education. Im a product of public school, but it was in a middle class area. If the school needed something the parents put up the money. All areas arent like this. Some areas the parents could give two shits. I dont think pumping in more money will ever change that. It simply goes back to the irresponsible. Lowering standards doesnt help. Teaching the tests dont help. I see alot of kids and some have no future. Their parents have failed them. Its frustrating, but until you address the problem, or hell even start to talk about it, there will never be a solution. IMO

10/31/2007 9:15:53 PM

let's see I'm liberal on almost all issues except equality issues where I tend to lean towards the conservative side of things

I won't lie and say part of me being liberal is because of my father but regardless if I was programmed or not we agree on almost all political issues

I support democrats simply because they are the power needed to advance the politics and issues I care about, I don't support republicans because the religious right, selfish people, close minded folks towards different people, people that like guns, people that value green as the color of dollars over the color of nature I all diagree with

[Edited on October 31, 2007 at 9:49 PM. Reason : a little nicer]

10/31/2007 9:40:31 PM

Quote :

"flyin, Im not shocked by my pay. I just grow tired of hearing about how people who make 100k are rich. Its just not the case. It often costs alot of money to demand such a salary, like me. That was my point."

Everything is relative. People hear 100k and it's more than they make. So compared to them, you are rich. We live in a society where people don't care about debt anymore (my friends look at me weird cause I don't like credit cards), so "costs a lot of money" probably flies over their head.

10/31/2007 9:52:11 PM

I was a Trotsky Leninist, but after reading this thread, I wanna be a "socialist fascist"... i don't know WTF that is, but it sure sounds groovy.



no, seriously, I'm a registered Democrat because my social values line up with the party platform. I'm not especially keen on the radical left-wing's idea of fiscal responsibility ... although, it couldn't be any worse than GWB's.

I consider all the candidates and all the issues, and after comparing and contrasting all the voting records and endorsements, i wind up voting mostly Democrat -- but i will vote (and have voted) for a Republican based on the person and the issues.

this election i will vote for at least one Republican: our County Prosecutor. the Republican incumbent is by all accounts a good man, a solid prosecutor, and doesnt play political grabass games. His Democratic challenger is not unqualified, but is basically running on the position "Hey, King County. You're liberal. I'm a Democrat. Vote for me, okay!"

fuck that. i need some substance to vote for a person, especially in a critical position like that.

10/31/2007 11:57:22 PM

I'm a fiscal conservative and social moderate (lean left on some things, right on others, probably average about center). I'm registered GOP, but mostly just disgruntled. If you're a fiscal conservative and even remotely pragmatic, you might as well stay at home on election day.

I suppose I shouldn't say that I will never, ever vote Dem, but it would have to be a very unusual scenario. I absolutely detest fiscal liberalism.

but then again, the GOP sucks pretty badly too, these days (and has since before I've been old enough to vote...and I'm 28).

In practice, I either vote GOP or Libertarian, or sometimes not at all (Libertarian party is fucking nuts about 98% of the time).

[Edited on November 1, 2007 at 3:23 AM. Reason : asfd]

11/1/2007 3:21:32 AM

Quote :

"'socialist fascism' Does not compute"

Quote :

"I wanna be a "socialist fascist"... i don't know WTF that is, but it sure sounds groovy."

Do you understand what I mean when I say that Republicans and Democrats are the same thing?

They are obviously two different things, SO HOW COULD THEY BE THE SAME?

Well, they are.

If you can't understand that, then you obviously can't understand socialist fascism.

perhaps you would prefer it as "socialist" fascism, or socialist "fascism"





while true that historically, fascism was a reaction to socialism and, in many ways, diametrically opposed it

they can, in fact, and do, overlap.

you can trumpet allegations of "oxymoronity" all you want,

but the terms "socialist fascism" and "fascist socialism" exist and have meaning

just like "Republicrat" and "Demopublican"




you probably read, or were taught, that socialist fascism is an oxymoron

and rather than use words the way words actually work, and have always worked,

you took at face value what some authority told you about word use

I think you're smarter than that







excerpts:

Quote :

"Fascists are socialists First clue: the Nazis called themselves, The National Socialist German Workers Party, not, The National Capitalist German Plutocrats Party, and the National Socialists boasted that Hitler had created in Germany, the most modern socialist state in the world............Fascism is but a sect of socialism............Socialist Fascists, Hitler being a prime example, are driven by the ideals of better societies, their root ambitions are often good ones. Perhaps, Fascists, like Socialists which are often one and the same despite an avid aversion for each other, need to............Marx decreed private property to be the root cause of capitalism and, thereby, the root cause of evil, and no self-respecting Marxist-socialist will ever let go that cardinal article of faith. And therein resides the critical difference between Marxist-socialism and fascist-socialism: Marxism prohibits the private ownership of property, and fascism does not............Other sectarian differences existed between the old Marxists-socialists and fascists-socialists. For example, Marxist-socialists were internationalist; that is............The formal Implementation of Socialist Fascism in the U.S.A. and the impacts thereof............Like Mussolini's Fascism, "socialist-fascism" put "politics," not property, in command. Like Fascism, "socialist-fascism" was animated by a vision, not controlled by property............On the other hand, fascists-socialists tended to be nationalist; that is............This was what socialist fascism looked like at T-minus 18 years before............Because so many variations existed, scholars disagree over a precise definition of fascism............Libertarian Socialism VS Fascist Socialism............and make the media independent from the politicians instead of having the politicians controlling the media to their likings......This is indeed Socialist Fascism.............All these fascist-socialists need to realize that when you create a new state............Anarcho-Commie.. And there are no Fascist Socialists here, except for maybe the Stalinists.. Don't ............That also means that we should denounce the actual federal meanstream-attitude, not based on liberalism, but on socialist fascism.............The entire idea of statist socialism is pretty damn fascist.............You can either have fascist socialism (state run economy where everyone is "equal") or you can have anarcho-socialism/communism (which should really just be called anarchy............major European powers are too wrapped up in colonialist aspirations and quasi-socialist fascism to be effective leaders.............They could be fascist socialists, for all I care, and it still wouldn't change the fact that............increasing immigration will cause our society to move more quickly towards socialism, probably towards fascist socialism, where the government doesn’t actually own the means of production, but simply regulates private property to such an extent that de facto socialism is established. This form of fascist socialism seems to be the rule in............Of note also is the intrinsic link between socialist fascism and statism. They cannot be separated, and in the words of............and a defender in 1934 of fascist "socialism," he might seem at first glance to be impeccably anti-bourgeois in his............It was Hayek that offered that the political philosophy identified as "socialism" brings to the leadership level the worst of politicians. And as Hitler’s form of fascist socialism, Nazism, and Stalin’s form of socialism, Communism, and our fascist socialism, "Democracy," we too are now experiencing............We have been trying to pull Europe out fo the grip of socialist fascism for 80 years now. Its part of what has been dragging us down.............Fascist socialism is more subtle than communist socialism. One form of tyranny has corporate logos pasted across the landscape, while the other has government logos pasted over the landscape............With everything GWB has done to curtail personal rights and freedom in the US you are arguing that socialist fascism is the enemy here ............It was fascist socialism (note : an atheist ideology) attacking freedom.....How is Fascist Socialism an Atheist ideology............the problem i see in america is not one of capitalism destroying the fabric of democracy as much as it is a move towards a strange fascist socialism sponsored by both sides of the political aisle.............Ironically, his prescience concerning the fading away of second-order (National Socialist) fascism before the coming to be of first-order (virtual) fascism ultimately made ............capitalist agendas as much as it is a move towards a quiet but deadly form of fascist socialism............The case for a corporate, managerial, bureaucratic, postindustrial, informational, or intellectual capitalism turns out on analysis to be an argument for either a transitional economy or socialism under a different name. The literature on socialism includes not just centralized, planned economies but also transitional economies, a market socialism without state ownership and a fascist socialism with only state control.............Either Rudy Giuliani will be the next president of the United States, or we're headed down the road to fascist socialism with Hillary.............Some ascribe a higher degree of totality or totalitarianism to Bolshevism; others assign it to National Socialist fascism. And, at the other end of the............In fact, the entire discussion that turned on the issues of integral corporativism and Fascist socialism created an intellectual environment in which some Marxists and independents socialists found............Space Fleet: N/A Government: Fascist Socialism Economy: Stable, but soon to fall............You had fascist-socialism and communist socialism in competition on a world scale.............Everything that we are fighting against were elements of the rise of Socialist-Fascism in Europe during the Interwar period............This sounds like just another brand of fascist socialism. The Democratic and Republican parties already have this political niche covered, I think. I doubt the market can support yet another fascist socialist party............Representative of his politics at the time was the title of his October 1934 book Socialisme fasciste ("Fascist socialism"), in which he described............And yet, even as we watch a country truly sinking into socialist fascism, a shoulder shrug is the best we can muster. Chavez actually is what the left has accused............There are no "rights" per se in this arrangement, only revocable and sanctionable privileges doled out by the "state" grantor. This is Fascist Socialism in its purest form folks! On the other hand, in a Sovereign Free Will government scenario............Democracy, viewed properly outside of the rose colored glasses, is the last step into the grave of Fascist Socialism, with its imposed duties and granted privileges."

11/1/2007 9:34:02 AM

11/1/2007 9:43:34 AM

(bastard x's)

[Edited on November 1, 2007 at 10:35 AM. Reason : .]

11/1/2007 10:10:51 AM

Quote :

"First clue: the Nazis called themselves, The National Socialist German Workers Party ... [and] boasted that Hitler had created in Germany, the most modern socialist state in the world."

Second clue: the North Koreans call themselves the Democratic People's Republic of Korea ... and boast that Kim Jong Il has created in Korea, thee most modern and free democratic state in the world.

11/1/2007 10:43:32 AM

Quote :

" I support democrats simply because they are the power needed to advance the politics and issues I care about, I don't support republicans because the religious right, selfish people, close minded folks towards different people, people that like guns, people that value green as the color of dollars over the color of nature I all diagree with"

yeah i tend to be right leaning when it comes to issues about the economy but i tend to vote democrat more often for the same reason as your above statement

11/1/2007 1:43:58 PM

Quote :

"I don't support republicans because the religious right, selfish people, close minded folks towards different people, people that like guns, people that value green as the color of dollars over the color of nature "

religious right=bad (not bad people, as they're well intentioned, but politically harmful)

selfish people...don't know what you mean. prob mean people like because i don't like being robbed of my money

guns are fucking awesome, and i don't understand the hard-on some people have for taking such a draconian stance against them

and while i don't take the stance of "fuck the environment" by any means (as i enjoy a lot of outdoor activities and grew up way out in BFE, gaining an appreciation for undeveloped spaces), I'm substantially more concerned with dollars. I think that's ok, within reason.

and close-minded? I'll take that as a roundabout and/or chickenshit way of saying "Doesn't like gay people", since that's the biggest thing most people seem to be driving at when they say this. I'll go ahead and say that I find most everything about it pretty disgusting, but amending the Constitution to keep them from getting married is retarded. For that matter, the federal gov't (and if practically possible, neither the state nor local gov'ts) shouldn't be concerning themselves with marriage at all. I'm not cool with gay marriages, but I'm totally fine with gay civil unions (if we can't get the governments hands out of it altogether). Maybe that would encourage an overhaul of the tax system, if nothing else.



at any rate, I absolutely despise the notion that most problems should be addressed through the government.

11/1/2007 7:36:55 PM

^good post duke

I can see the disdain with guns most liberals have. However, guns are here to stay. And I think people deserve the right to have and carry them. I currently dont own one, but if they are outlawed only criminals will have them. That just isnt a good thing. IMO

I look at a liberals wanting guns to go away, the same as religious people wanting people to stop having premartial sex, they both are here to stay, stop bitching about it and figure out away to make both as safe as possible. Dont just say, "you shouldnt be doing that, or you shouldnt own one" it does nothing to address the problems both face.

11/1/2007 7:46:05 PM

except that guns are expressly discussed by the Constitution... Premarital sex... not so much. Guns aren't just "here to stay." Guns should always be here.

11/1/2007 7:48:35 PM

Quote :

"guns are fucking awesome, and i don't understand the hard-on some people have for taking such a draconian stance against them"

Actually i should have struckout the part of the quote concerning guns. I do not have a problem with people have guns or the right to bear arms.

Should the average civilian be allowed to have a fully automatic assault rifle or silenced pistol..... in my opinion no
but other firearms are fine in my book.

^^ yeah exactly even if guns were banned kinda like how drugs are still around the market for guns would just go to the black market and it would be harder to regulate and trace gun sales. The effect on crime would probably be to increase.

[Edited on November 1, 2007 at 7:51 PM. Reason : a]

11/1/2007 7:49:54 PM